V for Vendetta
(Visited 7840 times) Watching
Mar 172006
We just returned from seeing this movie.
If it takes off, and becomes hugely popular, it may well sweep the Republican party out of Congress and the presidency.
It also has some stern warnings for any party that uses the same tactics (hello, videogame fearmongers, I’m looking at you).
Alan Moore really didn’t need to take his name off — it was rather faithful to the graphic novel.
I now need to watch some frothy bubbly stupid romantic comedy so I can sleep tonight.
22 Responses to “V for Vendetta”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Alan Moore is of the view that he shouldn’t put his name on anything which he doesn’t own (DC Comics owns the publishing rights), nor see a penny of profits from work derived from works he doesn’t own. He told the film companies to give any monies that would have gone to him to the artists who worked on those comics. The Hollywood types didn’t understand his rationale.
In case you were serious about the bubbly romantic comedy, I recommend “Failure to Launch.”
Safe prediction. You know it won’t become hugely popular. Let’s file that one under wishful thinking.
I filed it under H for hyperbole. 🙂
I saw the opening show on Thursday night. It was really good—sometimes pompous, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes serious. I didn’t have any idea what to expect beforehand, and it turned out that the casting and acting were great. A couple of times I forgot that it was a comic book movie and had to remind myself to suspend disbelief. The movie portrays a Britain that midway between Orwell’s 1984 and the United States of today. I ignored the politics of it and just enjoyed the movie. Its political message might be considered subversive in America by today’s standards; but only because Americans have forgotten the warnings of their founding fathers. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots”, etc.
It debuted at #1.
Alan Moore didn’t want his name on the film for a number of reasons. He hates DC, which is reason A. He also didn’t agree with the treatment of the characters in the film. From what I gleaned from an interview his arguement is that the facists were made into flat conservatives instead of well rounded people with their own motives and V wasn’t an anarchist but a liberal. As Moore himself is an anarchist he felt that the film didn’t reflect the views and passion he put into the book.
For the interview read here…
I’d read that already, actually, I don’t think V came across as a liberal in the movie, honestly. What liberal would be that handy with knives?
moo:
How defeatist. Iirc, the quote is, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants.”
🙂
ROFL!!
Over 2 decades of steady losses and ‘V for Vendetta’ is going to change things for the Liberals.
Allrighty then….
Hey now, I didn’t say it’d do anything at all for the liberals. I said if it took off, it could hurt the neocons — and for that matter, certain parts of the Democratic Party as well. Not at all the same thing.
The movie to me preserves a bit more of the original anarchist ideas than it injects contemporary liberalism…
Which parts of the Democratic Party? Like… Joe Lieberman?
Most people – conservatives included – are against fascism. The conservatives you may think it will hurt are in truth likely to come out of that movie thinking “We just whipped the crap out of the Iraqi Fascists – now let’s go whip the Iranian and Syrian ones too! Huzzah!”. Don’t know how the movie goes exactly – but that’s what it looks like it’s setting it up as, The heroic (albeit crazy) V set against the evil Fascist govt.
Where the left-right split occurs isn’t whether Fascism is good or bad – it’s whether we should be focusing our efforts to expand freedom domestically or internationally. It’s pretty old hat really. When there aren’t dangers abroad we tend to look inward and try to expand freedoms at home. When there are dangers abroad we do the opposite. It’s a balancing act.
Then of course there are really weird times like the 1960’s where we try to do both at the same time as JFK and LBJ did – but those periods in our history are the exception to the rule. We usually observe the old rule of “You can’t have your cake and eat it too”. But typically speaking people have been choosing to expand freedom abroad for the past couple decades (since Reagan) and that doesn’t look like it’s gonna change anytime soon.
Now you’ll get both sides saying that we “aren’t really expanding freedom” domestically OR internationally – whether it’s conservatives arguing against gay marriage, or liberals arguing against Iraqi democracy – but I tend to think all of those people are full of crap. Freedom is freedom and go suck eggs. Life’s not fair and no one likes a whiner.
Incidentally – speaking of Wachowski Bros. movies – the Matrix Trilogy was a good example of what flys with Americans and what doesn’t. The first movie in the series was very traditional in terms of it’s moral lesson – freedom over oppression. Neo whips ass in the end over the tyrannical robot overlords. The movie was an amazing success. But then in the next two movies they de-frock Neo and stick you with this idea that “Peace” with the Robots was what Neo ultimately chose to sacrifice himself for. Most people thought that movie sucked.
What can I say, I agree. I’d rather die fighting for freedom than make peace with a Tyrannical robot overlords. 😛
What can I say, I agree. I’d rather die fighting for freedom than make peace with a Tyrannical robot overlords.
Everyone who believes that really ought to just do it. The Matrix Trilogy was, disturbingly enough, realistic.
http://www.thematrix101.com/
And for those who have seen the whole thing: http://www.thematrix101.com/revolutions/meaning.php
I see…
…conventions and costumes in your future…
More to the point here are several reasons why you will never see a public reaction develop towards the war on terror that is in any way similar to the war in Viet Nam. Not “Taking Sides” here, just laying out the basic facts of the matter.
1. It’s an all volunteer force. Beyond that the todays soldiers are much better educated than the averge Nam Vet was for their time, and much more dedicated to the mission and willing to defend their beliefs in open debate.
2. The guys who are planning and running this war were the ones who were on the ground fighting in Viet Nam 30 years ago. They learned a great deal about how to fight a long term, low intensity guerilla war in that experience and have dramatically changed and improved the way our military fights them. Casualties in Viet Name were upwards of 60,000 – more people die of falling accidents per year in this country than have died fighting the war on terror so far.
3. Islamic fascists have no major backers. In Viet Nam China and Russia pumped in massive amounts of support to the Viet Cong. They did so proudly, openly, and unabashadly – but they have no such love for the Muslims. Sure, they may be helping them on the sly here and there, but between Russia’s problems with the Chechens, and the Muslim seperatists in the western Chinese province of Xinjang, our old Cold War enemies will never support them to the same degree they did they the Viet Cong.
4. In the 1960’s we had serious problems regarding civil liberties – namely the Jim Crow laws – that simply don’t exist today. In the minds of many liberals Gay Marriage and Affirmative Action may be just as important as a desegregated society – but in the minds of most people they aren’t. Neither here nor there, good or bad, that’s just the way most people think. You can’t make the argument that it’s foolish to fight for freedom overseas when we aren’t free here when most people don’t believe that nowadays. If you wan’t direct evidence of this look to the Black Churches and the cultural values that are espoused there. They may be loathe to vote Republican, but when the Libs come to force Gay Marriage and Abortion down their throat they stand up quick and kick the hippies to the curb.
5. Anti-war politicians in the days of Viet Nam still had patriotic credibility in that we were never attacked by Viet Nam in the first place and that, ostensibly, they would support defending the country if we ever were attacked. We were attacked by Islamic fascists in 2001. Many people may agree that Saddam had no personal hand in it – but they also know full well that Al Quaeda will jump in and take over in Iraq if we pull out.
6. In the 60’s and 70’s liberals had monopoly control of the nations media. That’s not true anymore. Nowadays the traditional liberal media is in decline. Rush Limbaugh for example has as many listeners (and more in some cases) than any of the major network news anchors. There is no Walter Cronkite telling the whole nation that he thinks “we just can’t win this war”. Add to that the blogosphere, fox news, opinion journalists, and host of other successful radio personalities and it’s a much tighter race in terms of coverage.
This may be something else entirely, but it’s certainly not another Viet Nam. And a movie by the Wachowski Brothers about evil Conservatives isn’t gonna tip the scales in either direction.
Heh, I didn’t mention the war either. 🙂
Lol! C’mon… who do you think you’re foolin’. That’s the entire premise of that movie (and this post). My wife doesn’t shave her pussy because she wants to go ice skating.
Hmm, actually, as an analogy to the current political climate, the movie’s plot rather noticeably leaves out the war. (Assuming that Britain and its government are supposed to map over to the US goverment). Rather, it is acts of domestic terror that lead to a crackdown on freedoms in the movie.
I’m not really up for arguing politics on this blog, but just because I grew up on a commune doesn’t mean I’m a kneejerk liberal either. 😉 For that matter, I don’t think neocons represent the totality of the Republican Party either. I do think there’s a legitimate debate to be had about “freedom here versus freedom abroad” as you put it.
The point I was trying to make in the original post is that the movie is really powerfully articulating a statement against repression of all sorts — if that clicks with the public (which has been fairly apathetic about many forms of repression lately, not just here but abroad as well), it could cause a backlash against whoever is seen as providing that repression, which could include whatever’s left of the Third Way sort of centrist left as well as the neocon right. The question is whether the movie is enough to light a fire under some portion of the zeitgeist or not. Based on the reviews thus far, though, it seems to merely be polarizing.
Interestingly, some of the harsher reviews come from the liberal papers.
The point I was trying to make in the original post is that the movie is really powerfully articulating a statement against repression of all sorts
…the movie’s plot rather noticeably leaves out the war.
True – but I don’t have to prented I’m a retard. The fascist archetypes provided in that movie are the typical “Evil-Conservative” stereotypes that Hollywood specializes in – it takes an IQ of about 9 to figure out what they’re getting at. Nevermind that communists butchered and oppressed just as many (if not more) people as right-wing fascists ever did.
It would be nice to see the people in Hollywood acknowledge this and quit placing the sins of history at the feet of Religious people all the time. The movements to free slaves in the 1860’s and desegregation in the 1960’s were just as inspired by Christianity as anything else – why most of them tend to mindlessly and reflexively attack Christianity on a regular basis nowadays is crazy; not you of course Raph (you are a true hippie), but the modern left in this country is dominated by nastier sort of liberal unfortunately.
I’m not really up for arguing politics on this blog…
I’m not either really, I’m just mapping out the lay of the land as it were. Many have, in the wake of V’s success, assumed that it would help spawn/foster/nurture an anti-war/conservative movement that would be similar in nature to the one that occurred in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Personal Political/Religious beliefs aside that’s just simply not the case. Anyone trying to start a liberal movement these days needs to go back to valuing the small victories and the long slow march towards building a larger movement just like the Conservatives did back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. All the success they are enjoying now begain in obscurity almost 30 years ago.
Farenheit 9/11 ain’t gonna do it. Moveon.org ain’t gonna do it. Howard Dean and a lot of screamin’ ain’t gonna do it. V for Vendetta ain’t gonna do it.
I find it interesting that after visiting Comicon.com forums and Comic Buyers Guide forums to try and confirm that Alan Moore requested his name removed that I end up finding the answer here, in the form of a link back to Comicon.com.
As far as “Is the movie about the war?” I would like to point out that the source material predates, started in 1982, finished in 1999 (1998?) and ties pretty close to the original. The biggest change being that the start of the movie, Act I, if you will, sets up the big finish, Act III, and that the villains are much more disliked. On the other hand, the movie Good Night and Good Luck …..
Well, I’m back to readin’ game blogs. Congrats on all the attention you’re apparently getting now.
I was unsure, but now I’m going to see V tonight.
Stormgaard, you seem to miss the laid-back attitude here. But out of curiosity – do you honestly believe that the Iraq war has been prosecuted competently? If so, how many examples of gross incompetence would it take to convince you otherwise? Also – how did you find lostgarden?
(smacks self, writes “check blog name” on post-it, posts on monitor)